In reply to a post by meditator:

Incidentally, do you think I'm correct about the DD mechanism - that it's up to them to cancel the arrangement, not me? If me, how do I do it?

NO!

It is YOUR Instruction, to your Bank, that you are Cancelling (hence, ONLY yourself has the Authority to Cancel it)!!

"How you do it" will partially depend on your bank, but generally (either/or):-
* - Go online & cancel it there.
* - Drop them a letter.
* - Go into the Branch.
* - Ring them up.

However, please do NOT do this until you are absolutely certain that ALL dealings with your Losing-ISP are FULLY completed!!

The risk to premature DD Termination is that, if your Losing-ISP tries to collect a Payment & can not (whether you think it may be disputed or not) "could" lead to an adverse Credit Rating Report!

(NB:- Even if you dispute this Adverse Rating, trust me, it is MUCH harder to get it removed than simply preventing it getting there in the first place).

Well, many thanks one-and-all for the wealth of advice you've provided these last 24 hrs.

Yes, you seem to agree with my understanding that the gaining ISP is supposed to either post off a letter to the losing ISP or to inform them of the proposed migration by some other approved means, but in this case the gainer told me that their practise was not to do that but instead to rely on the loser seeing a change in the tag info for the line. They told me that some days later, not at the time I placed the order. Presumably, this 'tag' gets automatically updated when an order is submitted by the gainer to a wholesaler? This seems to fit with what one of you has said about some gainers merely doing the whole of that step via the wholesaler. So the gainer in this case didn't send off a letter or e-mail and instead verred away from the recommended method, doing it informally (for want of a better description). Unfortunately, that then left me, the end-user, not knowing what was going on (effectively, I'd been taken out of the loop), and the more and more I waited to hear from the loser, the more I assumed that they'd not realised that an order for a migration had been placed. Part of the reason for the 10-day period is so that the end-user can if necessary get the required change absolutely agreed with all parties, or even cancelled, so I used it and contacted the loser. What would you have had me do? Wait until a further 6 days had passed and then try to sort the matter out on the very eve of the changeover?

As for the subject of DDs, perhaps I've been labouring under a misconception for many years. I thought the whole idea of a DD was that it guarantees that the retailer/merchant will always be paid, using the terms of the mandate. Maybe I'm getting DDs confused with some other banking arrangement? I know the customer can stop standing orders, for instance, but SOs are not the same as DDs. But what you guys are telling me is that, in effect, anyone can purposely default on their utility accounts, council tax, etc with impunity, if they want to, by just going along to their bank and asking for the DDs to stop. Hmm, well that's something worth knowing.

There's good news to report, however, that fortunately now transcends all of this. Last night I sent e-mails to the two ISPs making it 100% clear that it was a migration I'd ordered (with change to VDSL) and not anything else. The losing ISP (my current ISP) has now this morning responded to that, saying that they've been treating it as a migration, and still do. (Pity they couldn't have told me earlier!). And the further good news for me is that they've said that they've now finally instructed their agent to cease the DDs.

Unless my gaining ISP maintains that the order is something different, I think it's safe to say that the problem's now sorted.

Edited by deleted (Wed 25-Jan-17 11:19:50)

You are still misunderstanding some of this.

The gaining ISP places an order on the wholesaler. The wholesaler informs the losing ISP. The gaining ISP doesn't need to know who the losing ISP is. It can get more complex where moving between whoelsalers but that is how it should work.

DDs are not a guarantee for the company. DDs are under the control of the account holder. But, cancelling a DD when there are outstanding debts can be a bad idea and may cause credit issues. However, you can get a list from your bank of all DD mandates (online, by phone or in person) and you should check them to see if their are old instructions that are no longer required and get them removed. Best practice on completing dealings with a supplier is to terminate their DD mandate ensuring no accidental charges can be made.

Excellent news that the ISP has confirmed it is a migration. Hopefully all shall go well, and most likely would have done if you had done nothing after placing the initial order. Things may go quiet after placing the order but generally you just deal with the gaining ISP to arrange dates/etc and everything else should fall in to place. This is assuming you have already confirmed you aren't in contract and won't owe anything to the losing ISP.

In reply to a post by meditator:

And the further good news for me is that they've said that they've now finally instructed their agent to cease the DDs.

As others have advised, on your Bank account you have had placed a "Direct Debit Authority".

Whilst your ISP may have instructed their agent (supplier?) to stop using that authority, only you can have it removed. In any of the ways that have been listed.

Say at some time in the future the agent's systems get hacked. The hackers thereby gain access to that d/d authority and can debit your account with no warning.

As I and others have also said, do not do anything to it until you are sure all valid debits and credits have completed. Then get it removed.

I do wish ISPs would be more clear in their T&Cs.

When you take a service from an ISP you enter a contract with them. Legally that contract exists until the day you leave and final payments as agreed are paid.

That is an entirely separate construct to the Minimum Term, which while a condition of the contract is not in and of itself a contract.

Some ISPs are clear in their T&Cs as regards leaving / termination fees and specifically refer to things such as "within the Minimum Term period, fees X Y and Z will apply".

What muddies the waters is when the T&Cs refer to the Minimum Term as being within contract and after that as outside contract. It's just horrifically imprecise.

Faced with the terms you quoted there I can only suggest you ask your losing ISP to clarify their contract terms as regards leaving / termination fees. It's unusual to see such charges outside of the Minimum Term but nothing surprises me in these days of ever escalating phone and BB prices.

Ian72,

You are still misunderstanding some of this.

That's fair comment. But I don't think you'll find many users yet to switch under the new rules who'll appreciate the involvement of the wholesaler, as described in your second paragraph. My view as a result of my recent experience is that there's lack of clarity surrounding the exact nature of the handover - of exactly who does what. It could do with a bit of tightening up. I thought I knew what the process was, and had written it down, but it didn't quite work out as intended. The losing ISP at some stage is required to contact the customer to get confirmation of, and approval for, the switch to take place (to prevent slamming) but if the losing ISP doesn't do this in a timely manner the user can be left wondering what on earth's happening and whether the losing ISP has been informed. I don't recall seeing any rule about the losing ISP needing to do this within, say, 48 hrs, but given that the entire switchover has to take place within 10 days, it wouldn't be unreasonable, in my view, to require something like this.

Just a final few words on the issue of DDs: fortunately, I've never ended up owing companies money or defaulting on payments, so all of my own past DDs have been plain-sailing. But I can certainly recall - oh, must have been way back in the 1990s - a situation where I'd arranged with the ISP I was with at that time to end my Internet account. The payments were, I'm pretty sure, by DD but when I approached my bank to stop the DDs the bank refused and insisted that it was for the ISP to end the DDs, not me. I must say I was horrified at the time. From that point on, getting the DD stopped was a nightmare, primarily because the ISP was in financial trouble, was about to go under, and wanted to hang on to every last penny of income it could. That event has remained in my memory ever since. In those days DDs weren't that common and it could be that the banking rules on DDs were different then. Thanks for bringing me up to date on the matter, though. To ensure the current DD is 100% closed, I'll make a point of instructing my bank when I next pay them a visit.

Edited by deleted (Thu 26-Jan-17 11:36:09)

The 10 days is the term that has to be waited before the ISP can move you over. It isn't the term they have to do the transfer - the transfer could take weeks or months but cannot be LESS than 10 days.

And if you haven't got a list of DD mandates from your bank it is worth doing and clearing down any that are no longer active. This ensures there can be no accidents later on down the line. Mostly it won't be a problem but it is good practice.

The losing ISP at some stage is required to contact the customer to get confirmation of, and approval for, the switch to take place (to prevent slamming) but if the losing ISP doesn't do this in a timely manner the user can be left wondering what on earth's happening and whether the losing ISP has been informed. I don't recall seeing any rule about the losing ISP needing to do this within, say, 48 hrs, but given that the entire switchover has to take place within 10 days, it wouldn't be unreasonable, in my view, to require something like this.

There are some corrections needed to this:

1. The contact letter is not seeking approval, since non delivery of a letter or you not replying are taken as acceptance anyway, i.e. no action is needed from you for the move to go ahead
2. There is no switchover 10 day period for it to happen, in fact is CANNOT happen faster than 10 days, as there is the 10 day period given for you to respond to contact by the losing provider and cancel the migration. Thus usually time frame for a migration now is in the 3 to 4 week period, yes a lot slower than in the past.
3. Providers if I recall is meant to contact you in a timely fashion, i.e. no firm rule set, but if a provider is consistently failing to do so i.e. letter arriving after switches have happened then should be picked up in complaints to Ofcom and they'd act or issue fines etc

The new system is such that
a) Contact new supplier
b) Sit back and let it all happen
c) If something goes wrong e.g. still billed by old supplier afterwards then remedies such as direct debit guarantee and the usual routes are there.

Hi,
Reading their T&Cs that reads to me like if you cancel "Within" the contract period then they will charge 100% of the remaining contract + and admin fee.
As you are not within the contract then that does not apply to you.
The termination "Cease" charge is only raised by the suppliers if it is a cease and not a migration, so as long as the new supplier has done it properly (and seems from the loosing provider they have) then this also does not apply.

As for the DD, both parties can cancel this but I would hold off until the final invoice has been raised, if nothing is due but they still claim on the direct debit then there is a procedure in place called "The direct debit guarantee scheme" this means that is a direct debit is taken and it is incorrect in anyway (IE wrong amounts or not due at all) then the bank will reimburse you and then claim it back from the other side, you don't have to do or prove anything.
So your covered there as well.

The only thing you may have to pay for is any charge up to the end of your notice period (the period when either the gaining provider or you send them notice you are leaving) but that would be dependent on the loosing providers terms under notice period.